Ethnic cleansing in Myanmar

A bloody road to apartheid

MYANMAR’S government has reported that 82 people have died in the past week’s ethnic violence in the western state of Rakhine, and 2,800 houses been razed by fire. Both figures are almost certainly underestimates. The whole length of the state, a narrow coastal strip whose northern end borders Bangladesh, has seen mounting tension and often fighting between the majority Rakhine population, who are mostly Buddhist, and the Rohingya minority, who are mostly Muslim and are seen by many Rakhines and other Burmese as illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.

Human Rights Watch, a New York-based monitoring and lobby group, has used satellite imagery to show the destruction by fire on October 24th of a Muslim quarter on the island of Kyauk Pyu. The residents are reported to have fled, in many cases by sea, to the state capital, Sittwe. There, some 75,000 people, mostly Muslim Rohingyas, are already confined to squalid camps for the internally displaced, where they have been living since the previous bout of blood-letting in June.

Trouble in Kyauk Pyu will be of particular concern to the central government—as well as to China—since it is to be the site of a port from which oil-and-gas pipelines across Myanmar to south-western China will be supplied.

Violence was also reported in at least five other areas on October 26th. Curfews are in place in Mrauk-U, in the neighbouring district of Min Bya and in Sittwe itself. Tourists are being stopped from travelling to Mrauk-U.

In the south, in Thandwe, a town of 50,000 of whom 30-40% are said to be Rohingyas, tension is high and ethnic Rakhines say they no longer dare be seen associating with their Muslim friends. They see it as only a matter of time before the conflict reaches them, and for this they blame the Rohingyas.

In surrounding villages, some Rohingya families have already been threatened into leaving. Yet there is no obvious sign of increased security. The government has been accused—in June and again now—of doing too little to protect the Rohingyas. Indeed, the security forces are accused of committing abuses of their own against them.

After the violence in June, many Rakhines are convinced that only total separation of the two ethnic groups can ensure harmony. That belief is now being put into practice, as Muslim districts are torched and crudely armed militias of young Rakhines wage ethnic war.

The latest round of violence started on the evening of October 21st in Mrauk-U, a tourist centre that was once the capital of an independent kingdom of Arakan. A Rakhine merchant was killed there by a mob after being caught selling a large quantity of rice to Muslims. The next morning, in what seems to have been a related incident, three Rakhines were killed, unleashing a terrifying wave of revenge attacks on Muslim villages around Mrauk-U. By October 24th unrest had spread across the state.

The bloodshed in June was sparked by the rape and murder of a Rakhine girl. But historic animosities run deep. The Rohingyas are not recognised by the Myanmar government as a separate minority. Most were deprived of citizenship by the application of a 1982 law on nationality, and so are regarded as illegal immigrants. In 1992 and 1993 about one-fifth of an estimated 250,000 Rohingya refugees whohad fled earlier rounds of persecution in Bangladesh, were repatriated, in most cases against their wishes.

The government has said that the situation in the state is now basically under control. That, too, is questionable. A particular worry is in Sittwe itself, a town of about 200,000, half of them Buddhist, half Muslim. Just one Muslim district in the centre of town, Aung Mingala, survived the ethnic cleansing in June. Its inhabitants are not allowed out, even to shop. But the quarter is a focus for local Rakhine activists, who want to see it cleared too.

Even democracy activists in Yangon, Myanmar’s biggest city, refuse to acknowledge the Rohingyas as Burmese citizens. Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader, has said she does not know if they are or not. Thein Sein, the reform-minded president, said in June that the only solution was for the Rohingyas to relocate to another country. Shocking as this sounded to many foreigners, to most Burmese, and virtually every Rakhine, it was no more than a simple statement of fact.

Correction: The above article was amended on October 29th 2012 to correct errors in the number of Rohingyas repatriated from Bangladesh in 1992 and 1993. Human Rights Watch has reported the forced repatriation of some 50,000 Rohingya refugees to Burma during this time. Banyan had initially quoted from an inaccurate account.

Burmese people are pushing this myth of Rohingyas being Bangladeshi origin. It's true that some Bangladeshi people cross over to India because the economic opportunity there is better. The Rohingyas in Burma are in such horrible condition. Why would anyone want to go there from the Muslim-majority areas of Bangladesh?
Every post-British country is plauged with some people that falls neither here nor there. The Chtiggaong border was especially fuzzy, with people moving in and out, just as the chittagong hill tracts border. A lot of the ethnic minorities there trace their origin back to Burma. Bangladesh also has a small Rakhaine population. We are not pushing any of them back.
The Rohingya have shared historical connection and I guess even origin in Chittagong just like people have with along the Indian borders, but they were living for at least a couple of generation in Arakan when the borders were drawn. They don't even speak like the Chittagonian people, their dialect is distictly Arakanese, as is their culture (e.g. dress up).
Bangladesh government's reluctance to accept any more push-ins from Burma for fear of disturbance is justified. Any refugee population is a source of threat for the local population.

I guess the religious culture of Rohingyas do clash quite a bit with the Burmese cultures... Burmese aren't known for inclusion/acceptance, as is evident with Karen and other secessionist movements ... However, the Rohingyas don't appear to be a sublissive small minority and therefore come off as a threat - A friend of mine commented that the religious/cultural fear/intolerance was intentionally cultivated by central govenment to create a permanant fissure and thereby check any possible future disagreement with state government. This sounds plausible rakhaines themselves are not in a comfortable relationship with the mainstream Burmese.

I wonder what response one would get if the same people who said the Rohingyas aren't Burmese citizens were asked about the citizenship of the assorted non-Buddhist hill peoples? If this is a thinly-disguised religious bias, the Rohigyas won't be the last victims.

As I explained our immigration law again and again, foreigners ( Chinese, Bengladeshi, Indian )before 2nd WW enjoy as Myanmar citizen. We called them Myanmar (muslim ) or Myanmar Chinese. Finish.

The issue is for those group settled illegally after 1948. Both Bengla and Myanmar deny them to be their nationality. We must look at from Human Right perspective as well as sovereignty, national security, cultural harmony.

Did you know, during the history how many buddhists have been deported, tortured and exterminated by the invading muslims? chech the history book and you may find a clue. the tension in Myanmar is not an islotad event but rather one of a chians of tensions between the buddhists and muslim in the south east asia. there are tension in Thailand, in Myanmar, in India and even Tibet. The buddhists are very peaceful people and an ordinary Myanmar people normally donate two thirds of their incomes to the Temple, they wouuldn't do any harm to other people unless feel extremly humiliated.

The persecution of Romanies is a good comparison. Those people also lack an established homeland and resist assimilation. They, too,are being subjected to racial hatred and persecution. What happened in Northern Ireland is a disgrace to Ireland people and both the civil society in Ireland and international bodies such as Amnesty have condemned the attacks. The only dissimilarity with Rohingyas is that, the Rohingyas fail to get any sympathy from Myanmar civil society, which I assume, is subject to propaganda and threat from military government.

We are, as of the writing of that article, still taking immigrants--asylum seekers included.

And of course you will have taken a lot of Rohingyas in as well.

Why do I doubt you folks??

I am sorry - I forgot about your dislike of Latino immigration, and all the measures you have taken against that.

I also forgot that the USA had made a public offering of taking at least 100 Rohingyas in - just before the election

I am so sorry for being so stupid.

Incidentall We are, as of the writing of that article, still taking immigrants--asylum seekers included.People in Australia have also offered to take more refugees per capita t hen the USA.

Incidentally we were actually pushing the boats out of our waters, and watching some of them sink with the people.

Where were you then ?

But we are trying to stop the boat people.
and are now sending them off to the Islands, and some of the Hazarias are actualy deported back to Afghanistan where they will probably get killed
The Europeans do not want a bar of it.

And the Malaysians actually pushed their boats out to see as soon as they saw the boats.
Why isn't Bangladesh offering any help at all - not even towards being a mediator ?

Why has no-one offered any help
\
Not even you!... and as for the Hazarias - I personally would have liked to save them... BUT where were you?

Really, the communist polity quarantines citizen’s thoughts and outlook. An instance is Burma. The comity of states should spurn all immigration ties with Burma until resuscitation. Its draconian immigration policy causes pogroms – shedding blood. Burma is still not regarded as spectacular country for the tramps in the other parts of the world to immigrate.

Actually, to clarify, full Burmese citizenship is offered ONLY to persons whose forebears lived in Burma before 1823. This is reflected in both the 1982 and 1948 citizenship laws.

Citizenship by naturalization is offered to "persons who have entered and resided in the State anterior to 4th January, 1948, and their offsprings," along with stipulations such as the ability "to speak well one of the national languages," a qualification that many Rohingya lack.

It is terrible that These people have not been accepted by anyone.
It has also changed our image of Aung Sang sue chi.
Is this the time to find fault? I don't think so.
The truth is that the Burmese people do not want them.
The People of Bangladesh, are themselves too heavily populated, and really they need to go to an Islamic country to get accepted well.
They would blend well into most Islamic countries, and that would bring a happy end to their plight.
Our eyes should be looking at Indonesia, or Malaysia, or perhaps one of the Gulf states. Iran has enough space. All the central Asian Countries have a lot of Space too. Perhaps Afghanistan or Pakistan may be good for them.
It is important that where ever they go they are accepted well by those people.
Why can't we all be more sympathetic to these people?
There are only a million of them.

In life one sees a lot of horror. Too often it is overtaken by politics.
Often one notices that the good is not seen as easily as the horror.
This is now happening in Myanmar.

I see it as a good place from the past. I see that the Rohingyas dug a hole when had an uprising.
Should one allow them to lie in it?

If not, then should one face past horrors that could have been stopped?
Such as Rwanda? where the French had enough Muscle and influence to stop the slaughter.
Is it okay for us to say nothing when Russia bombs Chechenya to bits?

Why are we always so quite when nasty things happen to people, and it remains unpublicised?

Is it okay for us to criticize here, and keep quite there? And if it is, why is it?

Burmese people are pushing this myth of Rohingyas being Bangladeshi origin. It's true that some Bangladeshi people cross over to India because the economic opportunity there is better. The Rohingyas in Burma are in such horrible condition. Why would anyone want to go there from the Muslim-majority areas of Bangladesh?
Every post-British country is plauged with some people that falls neither here nor there. The Chtiggaong border was especially fuzzy, with people moving in and out, just as the chittagong hill tracts border. A lot of the ethnic minorities there trace their origin back to Burma. Bangladesh also has a small Rakhaine population. We are not pushing any of them back.
The Rohingya have shared historical connection and I guess even origin in Chittagong just like people have with along the Indian borders, but they were living for at least a couple of generation in Arakan when the borders were drawn. They don't even speak like the Chittagonian people, their dialect is distictly Arakanese, as is their culture (e.g. dress up).
Bangladesh government's reluctance to accept any more push-ins from Burma for fear of disturbance is justified. Any refugee population is a source of threat for the local population.

Here is a Comparison with the difference in behavior between different countries

(1) Can any one born in Saudi Arabia get citizenship there?
Same question for any of those Gulf Countries.
(2) Why does Pakistan have a different law to us? In 1972 they wanted to force all the Bangladeshi to speak in Urdu only. In fact they ended up killing 4 million people in the process, and refusing a fairly elected Prime Minister his office in the state.

It would seem that you feel it is fair when Muslim Countries behave the way want to - but the rest of must let rape and killings go.

Don't worry Banyan. I have already made a complaint to the police about the racist hate speech you are allowing to be posted here. Its not very difficult to bar one individual who is consistently and regularly spouting racist offensive nonsense.

If the BNP had the vile disgusting comments you are offering a protective platform to, there would be uproar.

Quote
About 30,000 refugees are reported to have fled Bangladeshi camps to avoid repatriation to Burma. "We are worried by the sudden spate in slipping out, especially after Rangoon signed an agreement on Friday allowing the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees to supervise repatriation of the Rohingya Muslims on their side", one Bangladeshi official said (Reuters, 11/08/93). Some 46,000 refugees have returned home since the repatriation began in September, 1992.